On Thursday, February 06, 2003 6:57 AM [GMT+1=CET], Toon Knapen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Recently had a talk with a patent-laywer from Philips. I deduced following > from this conversation (my own interpretation and IANAL) > > Copyright is automatic. From the moment you make something, you own the > copyright (so > actually no explicit copyright statement is necessary although it is > advised). From the > moment you change a file that is copyrighted by somebody else, copyright is > shared (of course, generally the copyright does not allow you to make > modifications) > > Now open-source projects (including boost) want to provide more rights to > the user as the default copyright allows. So we add a copyright notice also > indicating a license. This license is necessary to allow others to make > modifications, distribute it etc. > > So that's why the boost source-code can be considered open-source. However > if a Jamfile > does not contain a license, default copyright-right apply and thus the > Jamfile can not be distributed by others than the copyright-holder. > > So we certainly need to add a license statement and at the same time might > indicate > the copyright too (Indicating the license is still the most important > aspect). This all corresponds pretty well to what lawyers have been telling me. Also, remember that Sean parent asked that when the license requires a copy of itself in all "copies", it should say "copies of the source code", just to avoid misunderstanding about any requirement to include it in executables. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
